CESTAT rules in favor of Shivani Detergent Pvt. Ltd., upholding the CENVAT credit for erection & commissioning of a spray drying plant as ‘input service’.
Delve into the CESTAT Chennai’s decision: Lapse or failure to comply with CBLR does not attract penalties under sections 114 & 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Read about the case of Ultratech Cements Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot in CESTAT Ahmedabad, where discrepancies between the SCN and adjudication order lead to a re-adjudication process.
A mere averment in the Show Cause Notice that the appellant had suppressed the fact cannot mean that mens rea is established, No penalty if Alleged suppression of facts was not willful with an intent to evade payment of service tax.
CESTAT Chennai overturns Commissioner (Appeals) ruling that raised customs value of a second-hand car. Learn about the proceedings and decision of Lakshami & Co Vs Commissioner of Customs.
Delve into CESTAT Ahmedabad’s ruling in Kalpataru Transmission Ltd vs C.C.-Mundra, a case concerning penalties and goods misdeclaration accusations.
CESTAT pointed out that as the department had accepted the payment of service tax on output service, denying the CENVAT credit on input services, used for providing output service, was unjustified.
CESTAT Ahmedabad directs re-adjudication in the case of Senor Metals Pvt Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST. The article discusses the demand of customs duty confirmed for manufacturing dutiable goods on job work basis without disclosing verification report.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Grauer & Weil India Limited in a case against Commissioner of Central Excise & ST. The article discusses the eligibility of Metal Finishing Chemicals and Electroplating Salts for exemption under Notification No. 10/1997-CE.
CESTAT Kolkata held that data collection and analysis, manpower mobilization, liaison, training supervision cannot be classified under ‘Management Consultancy Service’ and hence demand of service tax set aside.
